A good starting place for Trek literature?

[kat0203]

I've been wanting to start exploring the books for a while now but I'm really indecisive and there are a lot of choices so I was wondering what would be a good place to start. I am particularly interested in TOS and TNG and my only criteria is that it's a well-written, cohesive story that actually feels like it could be a part of the shows.

Thank you in advance!

 

[Jinn]

The Shocks of Adversity by William Leisner is a great standalone TOS novel.

The Crucible trilogy could also be interesting to a new reader, as it follows the lives of McCoy, Spock and Kirk throughout the Five-Year-Mission, the movie era and slightly beyond, while elaborating on aspects that aren't that well explored. It isn't really a "classic" adventure in the sense that it could be a TOS episode though.

I always recommend Star Trek: Vanguard, as a great story during the TOS era, but it barely features the Enterprise crew and it's generally serialized. If that isn't a deal-breaker for you, it's a great self-contained series (eight books).

I'm not much of a TNG fan, so maybe take this with a grain of salt, but the post-Nemesis novel Q&A by @KRAD is a very enjoyable read, that ties together a lot of Q stories with something of an end goal for Q. I also don't think you need to know anything specific about the post-Nemesis era to enjoy this one.

 

[Relayer1]

A massive amount of post series stories had a shared universe which, in the light of the new shows, is coming to an end. Future works will be consistent with the new shows.

If it bothers you that these continuation novels no longer adhere to the on screen stories you may want to avoid them and stick to the novels set during the shows.

 

[Christopher]

A massive amount of post series stories had a shared universe which, in the light of the new shows, is coming to an end.

At least the portions of it that conflict with the new shows (i.e. after Nemesis). We don't know yet if all of it will end. People are just jumping to that conclusion.

People are expecting the Trek line to duplicate what happened with the Star Wars continuity when the sequel trilogy was made, but people forget that SW tie-ins took a different approach when the prequels and The Clone Wars came out -- instead of abandoning everything, they just disregarded or retconned the parts that conflicted with the new movies, while keeping the rest. Of course, there's no obligation for Trek to follow SW's lead; Trek came first, after all. But it shows there's more than one possibility.

 

[dupersuper]

I always liked Dreadnaught, Battlestations, Imzadi, How Much for Just the Planet, Vendetta, Federation, Starfleet Year One, Crossover, Reunion...basically anything I see by Peter David, Greg Cox, Diane Carey, Michael Jan Friedman, the Reeves-Stevenses...

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'll second the suggestion of the Crucible trilogy given above.
I also remember really enjoying the TNG novel War Drums when it first came out. It featured Ensign Ro and Worf, and I think paralleled some themes from the "Birthright" two-parter although the novel came out before the episode aired.
The Entropy Effect is a very early TOS novel that's a favorite of mine. It was written well before TNG started and has some interesting takes on Kirk. Similarly, The Final Reflection is a great take on the Klingons that was written between the time "The Wrath of Khan" came out and when "The Search for Spock" came out, although its ideas about the Klingons are very different from what we later saw on TNG and the later series. If you enjoy TOS, you might like these early takes on the TOS characters and situations.
You might also check out Federation, a TOS/TNG novel that came out just after TNG ended. It gives a different version of Zephrem Cochrane than we saw in "First Contact," and also features Sarek in (I think) both the TOS and TNG time periods.
There really are tons of novels from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s (and later for TOS) that are set during the television series, so just looking up some summaries on Memory Alpha or Memory Beta and seeing what looks interesting might be another good way to get started.
Finally, there is a new TNG novel set during the series, Shadows Have Offended, coming out in July, so that would be a good way to get a sense of where Trek writing is today.
Happy Reading!

 

[mastadge]

The Entropy Effect, Uhura's Song, basically anything by Diane Duane (The Wounded Sky, Doctor's Orders, Spock's World, the Rihannsu tetralogy), Prime Directive and Federation by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

 

[Damian]

I always suggest Chain of Attack by Gene DeWeese (one of the numbered Pocketbook released, I think it was released in 1987). People here are probably sick of me bringing that one up but it's one of my all time favorites. Basic synopsis--the Enterprise ends up in another galaxy and finds planets devastated by interstellar conflict centuries before. Eventually they encounter the warring sides and Captain Kirk has to get them to talk to one another while trying to find a way home.

If you like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and "Space Seed" Greg Cox wrote a trilogy of novels on Khan. The first two are about the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s (using a combination of actual history and fiction to present a way that the war could have occurred in real history). I highly recommend his 3rd novel, To Reign in Hell, which takes place between "Space Seed" and the film while Khan is exiled on Ceti Alpha V. That was another excellent novel and you don't have to read the first 2 novels to read the 3rd.

The Crucible trilogy is a good one if you liked "The City on the Edge of Forever". The first novel (focused on Dr. McCoy) actually depicts Dr. McCoy's 'alternate' history where he changed history and prevented the US entry into WWII. I admit I always wondered how that other history played out.

As for TNG, most of the novels over the last 20 years are part of a continuing series that takes place between the films Insurrection and Nemesis, then post-Nemesis through 2387 (about 8 years post-Nemesis). They are usually called the "relaunches" and really it started with the DS9 novels "Avatar" (though some earlier novels are retroactively added). It's not really consistent with Picard if you have watched Picard. If you're just looking for single TNG books, for now I'd probably look at some earlier TNG novels to start with. While you can read individual relaunch novels it'd probably be more edifying if you read them in order to get the most out of them.

For TNG the novel Vendetta was a good read. It is actually referred to in some later relaunch novels, but can be read on it's own and it's probably the earliest novel referred to in the relaunches in any significant way. It's a Borg story that also ties into "The Doomsday Machine" from the original series. I also really liked Metamorphosis, which focuses on Data. I also really enjoyed The Genesis Wave novels (there are 4 in that series, Books 1 to 3, then Genesis Force). They are a follow up to the Genesis Device from TWOK. They were also retroactively part of the relaunch continuity (they were released before the relaunches formally started but are kind of a jumping off point to the relaunch continuity). Then the relaunch timeline moves into the A Time Too...novel series which starts about a year before Nemesis and moves to just prior to the film. Those were a pretty good series as well.

 

[Smiley]

Check out Federation by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. It is a TOS and TNG story with a third thread about Zefram Cochrane.

 

[Reanok]

Also Star Trek Prime Direstive by Judith and Garfield Reeves - Stevens is really good too.Imzadi by Peter Davud is really good. Reunion by Michael Jan Friedman and his Stargazer books and other TNG books are good. Greg Cox's Star Trek Tos novels are really good and Dayton Ward Star trek books too.

 

[Extrocomp]

Why not start at the very beginning: Star Trek 1 (1967) by James Blish.

 

[Damian]

Why not start at the very beginning: Star Trek 1 (1967) by James Blish.

I'm not sure I'd start with the Bantam novels. The episode novelizations are fine for the most part (though I suspect kat is looking for original novels), but the original novels they put out were very uneven. I found most to be fair to poor. The Galactic Whirlpool is probably one of the only exceptions that was actually a pretty good book.

If kat were to read Price of the Phoenix, for instance, she'd probably never want to read another Star Trek novel again.

 

[Relayer1]

If kat were to read Price of the Phoenix, for instance, she'd probably never want to read another Star Trek novel again.

I've tried to read it.

I'm not convinced it's possible.

 

[Damian]

I'd probably honestly start with a standalone original series novel from the last 20 years. There certainly have been a number of good novels in the past, but even some of the early Pocketbook novels from the 1980s were mixed. Diane Duane's were good, but some of hers were contradicted in some ways by later shows like TNG so I'd probably save those for later.

If I were recommending a novel to a new reader and want to give them a good first impression I'd go with a more recent original series novel. Something that doesn't require you to read anything else to start. And I've found the novels over the last 20 years to be pretty consistently above average or better. The Legacies trilogy was a really good read. The Face of the Unknown was good as well (a sequel to "The Corbomite Maneuver"), I also liked the Antares Maelstrom and Ex Machina (a post TMP novel that is a sequel to "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky") and the follow up to that which was The Higher Frontier.

But honestly, if you were to pick up an original series novel from the last 20 years you'd probably luck out. There were more hits than misses. I was checking out a list on Memory Alpha and the only one that I saw that might have been a bit of a miss was Inception from 2010. It wasn't terrible, but just not a great book (it's a prequel of sorts to "This Side of Paradise" featuring Leila and TWOK with Kirk and Dr. Marcus' relationship). But from what I recall of the rest, they were mostly pretty good.

 

[Damian]

I've tried to read it.

I'm not convinced it's possible.

I'm probably a sado-masochist but I managed to get through it (and the sequel, Fate of the Phoenix....God, what's wrong with me anyway ). And no, it doesn't get any better.

I know there was a lot of talk about Killing Time being slash fiction. And I got my hands on a first edition copy of that. But KT has nothing on the Phoenix novels, esp. Price of the Phoenix (honestly, I was actually a bit disappointed with KT--if I hadn't known about its reputation I actually probably wouldn't have picked up on the slash elements--though at least KT was marginally a better story, I mean, it was coherent at least ).

I personally thought Fate of the Phoenix was worse, because it was just all over the place and at times didn't even seem to make sense. Some of the more slashier elements were gone (maybe someone at Bantam told them to tone it down a bit), but it was a jumbled mess. It was a case where I didn't even care how it ended. The only reason I finished it is because of this obsessive need of mine to finish what I start. As a Catholic I figured reading those novels should count towards a penance or something.

What's kind of a shame is they actually introduced a few concepts that could have been interesting in a better story. Worlds considering leaving the Federation for instance. Omni, the villain is mostly a disgusting S&M character, yet there were moments, esp. when they delved into his past just a bit, that indicate something more complicated, perhaps at one time even an honorable character before he became the twisted villain. But they just leave those elements undeveloped. For just a moment here and there I thought maybe we were finally on track to a better story, but they end up just being hanging threads that are forgotten.

 

[Christopher]

Diane Duane's were good, but some of hers were contradicted in some ways by later shows like TNG so I'd probably save those for later.

I don't see what that's got to do with anything. We don't read fiction for the sake of continuity. We're not studying for a test, for Pete's sake. We read fiction to be entertained, and Diane Duane's novels are highly entertaining. They absolutely should not be "saved for later." They're a great introduction because they're such good books. The goal is to get people excited by the characters and the universe, not to make them afraid of getting the "wrong" answers. Continuity should not be a hurdle for newcomers. That attitude will just scare people off.

 

[Damian]

I don't see what that's got to do with anything. We don't read fiction for the sake of continuity. We're not studying for a test, for Pete's sake. We read fiction to be entertained, and Diane Duane's novels are highly entertaining. They absolutely should not be "saved for later." They're a great introduction because they're such good books. The goal is to get people excited by the characters and the universe, not to make them afraid of getting the "wrong" answers. Continuity should not be a hurdle for newcomers. That attitude will just scare people off.

I don't know if I agree. Yes, they are very good books. But if someone is going in for the first time I'm not sure I'd recommend something that is no longer consistent with things they have watched on screen. I wouldn't want someone focusing on things that aren't consistent with how later shows portrayed things. After all, they are reading the novel today, not when it was written. Duane's portrayal of the Romulans for instance is not very consistent with TNG, and kat pointed out TNG as something she is interested in along with the original series. And she also pointed out a book that could feel like it's part of the shows.

If I were recommending a starting point, I'd start with a very good standalone story where continuity isn't going to be an issue so they can focus on the story, and not get sidetracked by continuity issues. There are a lot of great Star Trek books out there after all. Like The Face of the Unknown for example...it's a sequel to an episode of the original series and there are no real continuity issues. Or even the recent A Contest of Principles. Both good stories that are standalones without any continuity issues.

I'd certainly recommend some of the Diane Duane books, but probably after sampling some other great novels first.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know if I agree. Yes, they are very good books. But if someone is going in for the first time I'm not sure I'd recommend something that is no longer consistent with things they have watched on screen. I wouldn't want someone focusing on things that aren't consistent with how later shows portrayed things.

That does not matter. There are a hundred different inconsistent versions of Sherlock Holmes, a dozen inconsistent versions of Batman or Spider-Man or Frankenstein. People still enjoy them anyway, because they understand that stories are not real and that different creators playing with imaginary ideas can put them together in different ways. And they understand perfectly well that stories told decades ago are not likely to be consistent with stories told today. Heck, lots of franchises these days are openly embracing the discontinuities between different versions, playing with the idea of a "multiverse" in which every alternate version of a story is equally valid.

It makes no sense to me that so many Star Trek fans consider themselves incapable of coping with the kind of diverse interpretations that fans of many other franchises have no problem embracing and navigating. Star Trek is supposed to be about celebrating infinite diversity, not cowering from it.

If I were recommending a starting point, I'd start with a very good standalone story where continuity isn't going to be an issue so they can focus on the story, and not get sidetracked by continuity issues.

Continuity is not the overriding priority in fiction. It's a secondary consideration that most people don't obsess over. They just want a story they can enjoy about characters they like. You'll only scare people off by telling them they have to master some large intricate continuity before they're allowed to enjoy a story. Screw that. I love continuity, but using it that way is toxic gatekeeping, and it's only going to scare newcomers off. Just give them enjoyable stories about the characters and the ideas. The details of how stories fit together or not is something they can sort out later on.

Really, the inconsistencies between Duane and modern Trek are pretty subtle compared to a lot of older books. You couldn't really tell on a first reading that there's anything that doesn't fit; it's more a matter of fine details like the chronology of the TOS movies. No relative newcomer is going to be badly confused or thrown out of the story by those subtle variances. Most won't even notice them.

 

[Damian]

That does not matter. There are a hundred different inconsistent versions of Sherlock Holmes, a dozen inconsistent versions of Batman or Spider-Man or Frankenstein. People still enjoy them anyway, because they understand that stories are not real and that different creators playing with imaginary ideas can put them together in different ways. And they understand perfectly well that stories told decades ago are not likely to be consistent with stories told today. Heck, lots of franchises these days are openly embracing the discontinuities between different versions, playing with the idea of a "multiverse" in which every alternate version of a story is equally valid.

It makes no sense to me that so many Star Trek fans consider themselves incapable of coping with the kind of diverse interpretations that fans of many other franchises have no problem embracing and navigating. Star Trek is supposed to be about celebrating infinite diversity, not cowering from it.




Continuity is not the overriding priority in fiction. It's a secondary consideration that most people don't obsess over. They just want a story they can enjoy about characters they like. You'll only scare people off by telling them they have to master some large intricate continuity before they're allowed to enjoy a story. Screw that. I love continuity, but using it that way is toxic gatekeeping, and it's only going to scare newcomers off. Just give them enjoyable stories about the characters and the ideas. The details of how stories fit together or not is something they can sort out later on.

Really, the inconsistencies between Duane and modern Trek are pretty subtle compared to a lot of older books. You couldn't really tell on a first reading that there's anything that doesn't fit; it's more a matter of fine details like the chronology of the TOS movies. No relative newcomer is going to be badly confused or thrown out of the story by those subtle variances. Most won't even notice them.

Part of it was that kat pointed out she wanted to read a book that felt like it could be 'part of the shows', which is another reason I suggested novels that were consistent with what the shows portrayed.

As much as I liked some of Duane's novels, they just felt like a different level from the shows. I have a hard time envisioning them as part of the original series. To me they just don't seem the style of novel to satisfy what kat is looking for to start with.

 

[Christopher]

Part of it was that kat pointed out she wanted to read a book that felt like it could be 'part of the shows', which is another reason I suggested novels that were consistent with what the shows portrayed.

I'd say that the key phrase there is "felt like." The facts and figures of continuity are about thinking, not feeling. What feels like the shows is a story that captures their tone and style and characterizations.

I mean, for Pete's sake, it's not like all TOS episodes even fit together with each other on a level of facts and continuity, since they were making the whole thing up as they went, and since they were made in a time when continuity between episodes was not a priority in television anyway.